ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Timing of planned cesarean delivery among patients with two previous cesarean sections.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe timing of planned repeat cesarean delivery (CD) is debateful in clinical practice. Planned repeat CD is typically scheduled before the spontaneous onset of labor to minimize the risk of uterine rupture during labor and the associated risk for fetal compromise. This timing should be balanced with the potential risk of delivering an infant who could benefit from additional maturation in utero. We aim to study the influence of gestational age at the time of repeat CD on maternal and fetal complications. STUDY
designA population-based retrospective cohort study including all term singleton third CDs (≥ 37 weeks of gestation), between February-2020 and January-2022 at a tertiary medical center was conducted. Maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes were compared by gestational age at the time of the CD. A logistic regression models were constructed to adjust for confounders.
resultsThe study population included624 third CDs. Among them, two study groups were defined: 199 were at 37 + 0 to 37 + 6 weeks of gestation, and 44 were at ≥ 39 weeks of gestation at the time of delivery. 381 were at 38 + 0 to 38 + 6 weeks. Since our routine practice is to schedule elective CD at 38 + 0 to 38 + 6 weeks of gestation, we defined this group as the comparison group. In a multivariate analysis, both study groups were associated with significantly higher rates of emergent CDs after adjusting for maternal age, parity, ethnicity, premature rapture of membranes, spontaneous onset of labor and birthweight. After adjusting also for emergent CDs, CDs at 37 + 0 to 37 + 6 weeks of gestation were significantly associated with maternal and neonatal length of stay exceeding 4 days. Additionally, CDs at 37 + 0 to 37 + 6 weeks of gestation were also associated with composite of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated that scheduling third CD at 38 + 0 to 38 + 6 weeks is associated with reduced risk of emergent CD, as well as beneficial maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38507091What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.